Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. To Deny Taiwan New F-16 Fighters  
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17106 times:

Quote:
TAIPEI - Bowing to Chinese pressure, the U.S. will deny Taiwan's request for 66 new F-16C/D fighter aircraft, a Taiwan Ministry of National Defense (MND) official said.

"We are so disappointed in the United States," he said.

A U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) delegation arrived here last week to deliver the news and offer instead a retrofit package for older F-16A/Bs that includes an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7378123&c=AME&s=AIR

It boggles the mind of why China would care about this. To me, strong indicator of China wishing to acquire Taiwan.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 17081 times:

With modern weapons, Taiwan is basically not defensible against the fast growing China. It will be a waste of money to buy the F16C/D anyway. The money may be better spent by Taiwan building more missiles for symbolic deterrence - some sort of MAD strategy.

As for the symbolic air defense, Taiwan can use the fund to build some next gen IDFs.

So IMO this is a good thing for Taiwan. The increasing ties between the people of Taiwan and China is making military options more and more senseless.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25055 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 17006 times:

Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 16914 times:

After stuff like this and our economy over the past couple of years, I'm beginning to understand what President Obama says about being embarrassed for this country. No wonder he goes around the world apologizing to foreign nations about all of our perceived faults.  

Not even Pakistan was stupid enough to settle for their A model F-16's, and I'm only further embarrassed that we would offer to upgrade their A models even further, but still deny them the common sense of an upgraded power plant. If Taiwan does all that the US conceded, they will basically have C model Block 50's, just minus the thrust and reliability of a good GE F110 power plant.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article19.html

But what is all the more so ironic, is that we just all but told China to stick it not but three weeks ago now when they complained over our U-2 flights near their airspace. Apparently we had no problem offending China then.

Quote:

“We will continue to fly these missions in international airspace as a matter of freedom of navigation,” said Marine Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman.

China's Defense Ministry demanded an end to the U.S. military flights, according to a report Wednesday in the Global Times newspaper, part of the Communist Party-controlled news media.

“We demand that the U.S. respect China’s sovereignty and security interests, and take concrete measures to boost a healthy and stable development of military relations,” the ministry said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...call-to-halt-spy-flights-near-chi/


User currently offlineB727LVR From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 630 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 16772 times:

I am going to take an educated guess here... I do not know the current relations between China and Taiwan, but if China is poised to aquire or takeover Taiwan, and with the recent possibility that China was able to get a sneek peek at the stealth 60 from Pakistan, the decision to not sell the them the newer F-16's makes sense.

Would we rather Taiwan not fall to China? Yes... However... If we were to sell them the new equipment, and China does get Taiwan, now they have free access to the aircraft. Now I know we wont sell them an exact copy of what we use, but even some of the building process' could be considered sensitive. The biggest problem to me, is the uncertainty of it all. So you would have to ask, right now even with economics the way they are, would this be an acceptable risk?



I'm like a kid in a candy store when it comes to planes!
User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 250 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 16641 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):

Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.


We are turning our backs to a lot of long time allies. There is still long term fallout from Obama turning over UK nuclear secrets to get the latest arms reduction treaty with the Russians signed.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 16434 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Very disappointing.

Seems like we are turning our backs to an ever growing degree to the defense of Taiwan.

At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China? If China were to take over Taiwan (let's assume peacefully), will life on the island change? Would the PRC dare make wholesale changes or shut down businesses on the island, which would represent it's most productive and profitable province?

I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort. Now, if we're doing it as a way of making a stand against PRC military ambitions, I can understand that, but I think there are better ways to go about doing that.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 4):
If we were to sell them the new equipment, and China does get Taiwan, now they have free access to the aircraft. Now I know we wont sell them an exact copy of what we use, but even some of the building process' could be considered sensitive.

If you're talking about the F-16, that is not considered "new" equipment. It is a 35+ year old design and everybody and their grandmother owns one. I'm sure the Chinese have already gotten their hands on a few out of service airframes and given them a good going-over.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 16223 times:

I'm no military strategist, but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

Any major shooting war between China and Taiwan would be over relatively quickly and the Taiwanese would have to revert to and unconventional war (resistance).

The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

If the US planners decide that the F-16 would not even provide sufficient time buffer, then what good would they do?

Like some one has already noted, the money might be better spent buying a bunch of mobile SAM's and SS missiles to protect from air and sea invasion. Besides, these missiles would be easier/cheaper to maintain than the F-16's.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25055 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 16109 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China? If China were to take over Taiwan (let's assume peacefully), will life on the island change? Would the PRC dare make wholesale changes or shut down businesses on the island, which would represent it's most productive and profitable province?

I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort. Now, if we're doing it as a way of making a stand against PRC military ambitions, I can understand that, but I think there are better ways to go about doing that.

Deciding to join up with China as a single state is decision for Taiwan to make. In the interim the defense of Taiwan and ensuring its freedom has long been a US policy. At the very least such a policy kept China at bay, and made them have to think twice before acting on any imperialistic motives such as they have displayed with other territories.

In addition and especially now with China growing aggressiveness in the South China Sea which has created concern from the Philippines to Vietnam all the way down to Singapore, the strong support of Taiwan acts as a defacto stance the US takes in the region. China sensing US weakness and lack of resolve with Taiwan surely then knows its unlikely we will do much of anything as Chine seeks to push its territorial rights into the South China Sea, and one day possibly into the broader Pacific.

What the US does not realize today is that by refusing the sale of modern equipment to Taiwan is simply one move in a large chess match which China is pursuing in the region. China is in no rush, matter of fact in typical fashion looks out decades in posturing its foreign policy.

Unfortunately, with this decision we are on the way to folding our cards and our broader might in the region.
As Lee Kuan Yew the elder statesman of Singapore said in his biography:
"The greatest danger East Asian nations face is not the awakening dragon, but a toothless American tiger. Without the existence of local balance of power, the emphasis of regional security, and creation of coalitions and alliances, the Asia Pacific region will loose the stability required to peacefully prosper. Without balance, the dragon will be left to roam as it desires while we all watch and worry that it does not happen to breathe on us.

[Edited 2011-08-18 20:25:42]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 16088 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):

I'm no military strategist, but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

bikerthai, I enjoy your comments, but there is several recent examples that counter your argument regarding the above statement.

Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.

As far as the Taiwan is concerned... I'm not so worried about mainland China? Sometimes, It appears that One country (or allied group or countries) has a specific military advantage over another? Like Libya... This should have been a slam dunk for western forces... But, without the logistical capability (US not fully committed) to move man and machine, It becomes a sizable task.

The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight... For example, think back to WW2 and Germany's lack of maritime expeditionary assets to invade England. This is also China's problem.

Rgds,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 16014 times:

Chinas problem is what happens to their global markets if they decided to strike out militarily? It's all fine and dandy to keep your Tienanmen's within ones borders but striking out at what the rest of the world sees as an independent country, would send the very important markets for a loop and would send anti Chinese sentiment through the roof.

China cares more about the dollars and euros it's taking in more than a unified China. There are lots of places in the world that can make cheap t shirts.



What the...?
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15958 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):

Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success.

This is true for a conventional fight. It is not true for a guerrilla war specially if the populace is with the guerrilla. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the conventional fight was won quickly, the unconventional fight only turned in area where the populace came over to our side. China will not have the second option in Taiwan

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Like Libya... This should have been a slam dunk for western forces... But, without the logistical capability (US not fully committed) to move man and machine, It becomes a sizable task.

Letting the rebel fight the ground war has gone relatively well. They have isolated Tripoli with NATO's help in a span of 6 months. That's quite a feat when you are out gunned in most confrontation but made easier when you have knowledge of local terrain and have the backing of the local people.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight...

I agree with this point 100%. Logistics would be China's major problem in conquering Taiwan. Not only from the initial invasion stand point but through the subsequent counter insurgency fight. From that standpoint, maybe some diesel submarine would be more beneficial to the Taiwanese than the F16s?

Remember, during WWII the Allied never really solved their logistic problem until they finally captured Amsterdam. The largest French port was held by the Germans till the end of the war and the next largest was way too far south.


Oh, and I'm surprised no one commented on the real reason why the F-16 (or diesel sub) will not be sold to Taiwan . . . ALL THE US BONDS THAT CHINA HOLDS. Or is this so much a given that we take it for granted?

bikerthai

[Edited 2011-08-19 06:27:03]


Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 15831 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
With modern weapons, Taiwan is basically not defensible against the fast growing China. It will be a waste of money to buy the F16C/D anyway

Those would at least give them a choice to defend themselves or surrender outright.

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 1):
As for the symbolic air defense, Taiwan can use the fund to build some next gen IDFs.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/asian-skies/2011/08/12/2011-08-11_10-14-00_217%20%281%29.jpg
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/as...1-08-11_10-14-00_217%20%281%29.jpg

The IDF could be relied on for CAP duties, but (if the thrust upgrades were not completed) really needed the F404 engine, and perhaps a downscaled AESA or at least a later version radar to be really useful.

Quoting B727LVR (Reply 4):
and with the recent possibility that China was able to get a sneek peek at the stealth 60 from Pakistan, the decision to not sell the them the newer F-16's makes sense.
.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...8/video-j-20-rocks-then-rolls.html

More likely that they received stealth technology from the Russians.....

http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/mikoyan_mig_mfi.htm

Quote:
"However in 2010 photos of the new Chinese J-20 stealthy multi-role fighter appeared, which is very similar to the MiG 1.42. It is speculated, that development of the J-20 was assisted by the MiG aviation company."

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
At this point, I'm not quite sure what we would be defending Taiwan against? It is "China" in every respect, except the form of government. What would be the loss to us after 33 years of recognizing the PRC as the real China?

Freedom of navigation in the Taiwan Strait and commercial exploration in the potentially oil-rich Spratlys?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
but as current events have shown that the best defense against an overwhelmingly superior force is not to have high tech weapons but lots of low tech for use in insurgency.

Insurgents would also like to have a little of the good stuff...to level the playing field a bit, so to speak.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
Any major shooting war between China and Taiwan would be over relatively quickly and the Taiwanese would have to revert to and unconventional war (resistance). The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

Maybe that's all they want?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.
Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight...
.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...ALevNCTAQ&ved=0CE0Q9QEwCA&dur=6362

Minus outside help, 111+ miles are all that separate Taiwan from the mainland...it's not halfway around the world. I tend to think that China need only mobilize a small fraction of its vast tonnage of tanker, cargo and container fleet (with sea and air cover) plus the planes the West had been selling them, to launch a successful invasion (after softening the island's defenses, of course).

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 11):

This is true for a conventional fight. It is not true for a guerrilla war specially if the populace is with the guerrilla. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the conventional fight was won quickly, the unconventional fight only turned in area where the populace came over to our side. China will not have the second option in Taiwan

Let us not forget that the PLA are past masters at guerilla warfare...with the numbers to back them up.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 10):
Chinas problem is what happens to their global markets if they decided to strike out militarily? It's all fine and dandy to keep your Tienanmen's within ones borders but striking out at what the rest of the world sees as an independent country, would send the very important markets for a loop and would send anti Chinese sentiment through the roof.

China cares more about the dollars and euros it's taking in more than a unified China. There are lots of places in the world that can make cheap t shirts.

I'm really hoping such is their mindset, and peaceful co-existence their ultimate goal. What would they do with a desolate, bombed out island other than use it as their Pacific outpost and launch pad?



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15813 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

So where exactly are all these forces that the US has allocated to the defense of Taiwan, we knew where and how they intended to defend Europe and South Korea.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):
Deciding to join up with China as a single state is decision for Taiwan to make.

I wonder why no one wants the Taiwan people to vote on that straight up, surely the reason cannot be what China would do if the outcome was independence and application to the UN for a new state.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
Iraq, first and foremost suggests that the insurgents (homegrown or foreign) don't have the military capabilities to engage any well organized western military formation with any chance of success. The same goes for the Afghan theater.

So Iraq and Afghanistan are now pacified and the people united in building their nation?

Quoting mffoda (Reply 9):
The main reason that China is really no immediate threat, is that they don't have the Expeditionary capabilities to cross the straight... For example, think back to WW2 and Germany's lack of maritime expeditionary assets to invade England.

I thought Germany never invaded because Hitler was a "closet Englishman"

Crossing the strait is doable, anyone understand the strategy of all those SSM's pointed across the strait, soldiers can be flown across and ships will follow, how many submarines can / will the US deploy, would China use massive amphibious ships to carry troops over or hundreds of smaller ships / boats? Will submarines deploy multi-million torpedoes against small boats or wait for the bigger vessels?
In todays environment, boots on the ground can almost be a win, sure they may have difficulty re-supplying but by then the negotiators are involved and the desire for a long war on China's doorstep while the US logistic tail is thousands of miles long is not pratical in this day and age. The US is a net importer not exporter, its industrial base in terms of producing items for a sustained conflict is greatly diminished, not talking about precision weaponry.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 15794 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
Those would at least give them a choice to defend themselves or surrender outright.

I doubt how much time the F16s can buy. I would expect the Chinese will destroy the few airports before any air war can begin. A large number of mobile SAMs, plus a lot of SSMs against coastal bases and cross strait ships, will probably buy the more time.

Best symbolic deterrence, IMO are subs and UAVs which act as missile launch pads.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
The IDF could be relied on for CAP duties, but (if the thrust upgrades were not completed) really needed the F404 engine, and perhaps a downscaled AESA or at least a later version radar to be really useful.

Taiwan will never get F404. However IDF's TFE1042-70 can be upgraded, may be up to 12000lb.

Bottom line, Taiwan, even with US help, is in a no-win situation if China decides to take over. Luckily China is more busy making money, buying properties in and sending tourists to Taiwan while many Taiwanese are living and making tonnes of money in China.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (3 years 21 hours ago) and read 15580 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 7):
The only thing the F-16 would do is provide the Taiwanese more time to enable the US forces to come and rescue.

If the US planners decide that the F-16 would not even provide sufficient time buffer, then what good would they do?

Like some one has already noted, the money might be better spent buying a bunch of mobile SAM's and SS missiles to protect from air and sea invasion. Besides, these missiles would be easier/cheaper to maintain than the F-16's.

I don't get this arguement. The US did suggest them to buy missiles instead of the F-16s. They deny the sale of F-16. I really doubt the denial is based on strategic need of Taiwan. I have never heard US Government denying a foreign arms export based on what the country needs. It was always based on whether they are ally or human rights violations.

I don't think the US dictates Taiwanese defense policy, and I especially don't buy that the reason of this arms purchase denial is based on what the US thinks of the Taiwanese strategic "needs." It is one thing saying "sure you can buy these things, but you really need more missiles." But to outright ban the sale? come on..



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 18 hours ago) and read 15543 times:

The problem with China taking over Taiwan is that there would be a lot of politcal prisoners in Taiwan. Other than that yes PRC would want to keep Taiwan successful.

For the rest of the world the bigger issue is PRC gaining a complete stranglehold on the South China Sea if they get Taiwan. That means no shipping through the strait without PRC permission (USA would protest but would no longer rish a carrier group in the process). Japan, Phillipeans, Vietnam, etc would all miss out on a lot of resources (as it is China is trying to bully them somewhat successfully).

Quite literally in this modern age there is no "need" for China to take over Taiwan (small countries are viable just look at Singapore etc). It is heading towards MAD just without the nukes on Taiwans side (I bet they have enough missiles aimed at Beijing to level the city though which is probably why China has not acted). If they got Taiwan then whats next? Mongolia? Vietnam etc?



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 18 hours ago) and read 15534 times:

China is not stupid. China is spending money in Taiwan, making itself look more and more attractive. Give it 50 years, Taiwan will join China of its own free will. Maybe as a special independent state... but the time will come.

My oldest son is about to start Kindergarten in a few weeks, I think he would be better off learning Chinese than French in the coming years :/ The world is changing... people just refuse to see it.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 hours ago) and read 15411 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
(I bet they have enough missiles aimed at Beijing to level the city though which is probably why China has not acted).

Since the US has some say on the military weaponery Taiwan has, if they have such missiles they must be home grown, as the US has not been supplying Taiwan with offensive weapons, missiles that could reach Beijing would fall in that category.
Besides, surface to surface missilies are not items the US military has much use for, it allows the US Army a longer reach on the battlefield thus removing some of their reliance on the Air Force, definately a no no. MRLS or long range arty to about 30 miles anything over that belongs to aircraft.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 15127 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):
I think on this one issue, the U.S. is mired in a Cold War mentality. Defending Taiwan for Taiwan's sake is not worth the effort.
Quoting redflyer (Reply 6):

If you're talking about the F-16, that is not considered "new" equipment. It is a 35+ year old design and everybody and their grandmother owns one.

Unfortunately it is -

1) If the US fails to defend Taiwan it loses face and credibility with other Asian allies
2) If the US fails to supply Taiwan to defend itself it simply strengthens Taiwan's urge to go nuclear at some point
3) It also strengthens every other Asian country's urge to go nuclear ... we are already seeing signs of Vietnam having approached ROK and India on this. ... and Japan seems to have started the debate in earnest at the bureaucratic level.

Whatever the F-16 it is still vastly superior to the bulk of Chinese planes - electronically at least, and Taiwan's defence has always been about Quality over Quantity.


On the other side though - the KMT by its inconsistent politics and the string of security breaches it has sought to brush under the carpet - has lost US trust. If the US supplies Taiwan with weapons - they have no guarantees that some Idiot from the KMT wont decide to gift it to china as a good will measure.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15040 times:

Capitalism at it finest.

China currently owns $1.2 trillion of U.S. Treasury debt, the largest stake of any central bank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...-blasts-us-over-cred_n_920094.html

Advises to stop spending so much were proudly dismissed for a decade. Reaganism spending while cutting tax.

Now it's pay back time.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 15015 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 12):
Let us not forget that the PLA are past masters at guerilla warfare...with the numbers to back them up.

That was what? 70 years ago? And all the veterans of that war was killed off during the cultural revolution.
The last campaign China had was with Vietnam with a border skirmish. China claimed victory by teaching Vietnam a lesson but had its nosed bloodied.

Wonder if any leaders from that campaign survived the "re-organization" after that?

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 15):
They deny the sale of F-16. I really doubt the denial is based on strategic need of Taiwan.

Just a theory . . .

US public debt was another.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 19):
have no guarantees that some Idiot from the KMT wont decide to gift it to china as a good will measure.

No need to gift wrap, PLA intelligence has already penetrated the KMT.  

Anyone who thinks it's a breeze to stage a cross channel landing should read the official US Army reports on WWII battles (the Island campaign) and see what kind of logistics is involved.

All the commercial shipping that is coming out of China right now will not help with an invasion or occupation (wrong type of ships, wrong owners, wrong kind of logistics - Can't really send over a company of men or an APC in a container can they?).

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (2 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 14997 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
Anyone who thinks it's a breeze to stage a cross channel landing should read the official US Army reports on WWII battles (the Island campaign) and see what kind of logistics is involved.

I do not think it would be a breeze, but I also do not think that if China decides to invade Taiwan tomorrow they cannot do it because they do not have a fleet of amphibious ships, I see that as false comfort. The bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

If a missile strike heralds the invasion, airborne forces are deployed, cargo ships with military escorts including submarines would be next to get supplies across. A submarine battle would ensue, depending on who controls the sky the submarines would be on their own.
Yes torpedoes and missiles can be used, China is aware of this, the US does not use wolfpack tactics, so if numbers are an issue how many can get through, how many would you need, how much anti-China is Taiwan actually?

During the Korean conflict, the US never expected overwhelming numbers to be thrown at them, China has numbers, and in any battle, numbers are a factor as well as quality.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 14960 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
I do not think it would be a breeze, but I also do not think that if China decides to invade Taiwan tomorrow they cannot do it because they do not have a fleet of amphibious ships, I see that as false comfort. The bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

You are right, that the bulk of US combat vehicles delpoyed to Iraq did not arrive on military ships.

However, You missed the point that they were delivered to friendly ports that were intact and manned by the host country. This would not be the case in Taiwan. As far as their military amphibious capability is concerned, they have the capability to sea-lift less then 25k troops on dedicated transport vessels.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
f a missile strike heralds the invasion, airborne forces are deployed, cargo ships with military escorts including submarines would be next to get supplies across. A submarine battle would ensue, depending on who controls the sky the submarines would be on their own.
Yes torpedoes and missiles can be used, China is aware of this, the US does not use wolfpack tactics, so if numbers are an issue how many can get through, how many would you need, how much anti-China is Taiwan actually?

China's Airborne forces face the same obstacles as their sea-lift capability. Dedicated paratroop capable airlift is also lacking, less then a division (US equivalent) total capability.

Before I go any further... We should understand that if any of these invasion scenario's were to take place, there would be a very large military build up prior to... that would Not go unnoticed. That would allow the US to move assets closer.

The Chinese submarine threat is probably their weakest link. There are rumors that every time a Chinese missile boat goes to sea, it has an escort. And from what I here, they are not impressive. One of the jokes I heard, was comparing them to a VW bug with a "just married" sign on the back dragging empty cans down a cobblestone street.  

Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

Quoting par13del (Reply 22):
During the Korean conflict, the US never expected overwhelming numbers to be thrown at them, China has numbers, and in any battle, numbers are a factor as well as quality.

Again, those overwhelming numbers only count if you can get them to the battle! In your Korean example they walked...



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 14881 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Before I go any further... We should understand that if any of these invasion scenario's were to take place, there would be a very large military build up prior to... that would Not go unnoticed. That would allow the US to move assets closer

China sits across the straits, the US would have to move assets to friendly countries in the region who will attempt to use their influence to prevent the conflict, no different than what Turkey did during the build up for Gulf War II.
How fast can China get assets to its coast versus the US across thousands of miles of ocean.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

Yes, but would a SSGN be deployed in the straits or attack subs, much less missiles and torpedos.
China would have to deply its subs with escorts, after all Taiwan also has older sub which must also be dealt with.

It a good idea for a war game simulation, I can think of a few scenarios to throw, so far the distance and the massive SSM's deployed seem to drive all my strategies toward a first strike being the best defense of Taiwan.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 25, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 14994 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
How fast can China get assets to its coast versus the US across thousands of miles of ocean.

Not a fair comparison . . . but the Brits did relatively well during the Falklands Campaign.

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
How fast can China get assets to its coast versus the US across thousands of miles of ocean.

LOL . . . Moving a division by land in China may take longer than moving a division by boat on the Pacific Ocean.

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
Yes, but would a SSGN be deployed in the straits or attack subs, much less missiles and torpedos.

What are the range of the attack sub cruise missiles? Would they need to be deployed in straight to have an impact?

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
to friendly countries in the region who will attempt to use their influence to prevent the conflict,

True,

But once conflict starts, there will be countries willing to support US deployment:

Japan: China's Rival
Philippines: Historical allies.
Vietnam: If they can get over the fear of another Chinese invasion. (A complicated relationship)

All these countries fears China enormous capacity. Once conflict starts, that fear would turn into an opportunity to cut China down a couple of notch - with the US help of course  

And if it takes more than a month for the Chinese to pacify Taiwan, then the US would have Eastern Taiwan as a foot hold. Note Eastern Taiwan is mountainous and would be more readily defended. I don't see the Chinese moving across that mountain range in 1 or 2 months. It may be more beneficial to buy a whole bunch of guns (artillery) and missiles and defend the mountain range if you can't get your hands on the F-16.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 14962 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
China sits across the straits, the US would have to move assets to friendly countries in the region who will attempt to use their influence to prevent the conflict, no different than what Turkey did during the build up for Gulf War II.
How fast can China get assets to its coast versus the US across thousands of miles of ocean.

The US already has considerable assets in the region... Japan, Guam and South Korea

Quoting par13del (Reply 24):
Yes, but would a SSGN be deployed in the straits or attack subs, much less missiles and torpedos.
China would have to deply its subs with escorts, after all Taiwan also has older sub which must also be dealt with.

Below is from a article dated last month...

http://www.thenorthwestnavigator.com...captain-michigan-blue/?partner=RSS

"Michigan and its sister SSGN, USS Ohio (SSGN 726), are homeported at Naval Base Kitsap, Bangor and forward deployed to Guam."

Guam is less then 1500 nm from Taiwan. Besides the 2 SSGN's presently attached, there are 3 SSN's stationed there as well. And let's not forget Japan and the 7th Fleet assets... Including a CBG with Aegis escorts and presumably a SSN or 2? Not to mention that there are plenty of Air assets within striking distance as well.



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 15086 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 14):

I doubt how much time the F16s can buy. I would expect the Chinese will destroy the few airports before any air war can begin.

The Chinese would also want to leave as much intact as possible for their later use. It's the Taiwanese who might sabotage those lest they fall into Chinese hands.


Quoting cosmofly (Reply 14):
A large number of mobile SAMs, plus a lot of SSMs against coastal bases and cross strait ships, will probably buy the more time.

Even the PAC-3, P-3 and E-2B upgrades are running into a lot of flak.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
The problem with China taking over Taiwan is that there would be a lot of politcal prisoners in Taiwan.

Or a lot of young, highly skilled and educated work force in Chinese plants and reeducation camps.


Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 16):
Other than that yes PRC would want to keep Taiwan successful.

They could pattern it after the Hong Kong Autonomous Region model.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):

That was what? 70 years ago? And all the veterans of that war was killed off during the cultural revolution.

Then who put up the PROC.....republicans? It's not unthinkable that the lessons of that war were documented and studied.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):
The last campaign China had was with Vietnam with a border skirmish.

While the last major campaign of the KMT had them scurrying across the strait to Formosa. Admittedly, they now have imbibed immense, modern military doctrine.


Quoting bikerthai (Reply 21):

Wonder if any leaders from that campaign survived the "re-organization" after that?

Wonder too, who Taiwan would get to lead its resistance forces, just in case?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 25):
It may be more beneficial to buy a whole bunch of guns (artillery) and missiles and defend the mountain range if you can't get your hands on the F-16.

It's still up in the air.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...-on-taiwan-f-16-sale-dod-says.html

Quote:
"A senior US Department of Defense official suggested on 24 August that the proposed sale of 66 Lockheed Martin F-16C/Ds to Taiwan has not been ruled out, despite recent news reports to the contrary.

Asked to comment on the news reports about the F-16 deal, Michael Shiffler, deputy assistant secretary of defence for East Asia, stopped short of giving a direct answer.

'I will simply offer that there have been no decisions that have been made on arms sales to Taiwan,' Shiffler said. 'We work this question on a daily basis.'

Shiffler added that the US government continues to support a policy of providing Taiwan with the 'self-defence capabilities that it requires'."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 15055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

And two Ohio SSGNs would carry almost our entire inventory of anti-ship Tomahawks (unless they've built a bunch of TASMs in the last few years).


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 29, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 15051 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 27):
Or a lot of young, highly skilled and educated work force
Quoting Devilfish (Reply 27):

Wonder too, who Taiwan would get to lead its resistance forces, just in case?

  

LOL. As we have seen in Libya, a lot of young, highly skilled and educated work force will learn fast the ways or war and become an effective resistance force (given enough arms support). I wonder if the Taiwanese have the mandatory service for their citizens. If yes, then most of the populous would have a head start over the Libyans.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 27):

They could pattern it after the Hong Kong Autonomous Region model.

For one city, this may work. For a whole Island? Well, you just have to look at Tibet for an alternative example.

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 27):
It's not unthinkable that the lessons of that war were documented and studied.

Ah, the question is was it documented with the same scholastic integrity of a non-partisan text or was it embellished too much to show the Great Chairman Mao in a good light that it would be useless for study? Besides, they probably already know the principle of guerrilla war is to co-op the populous. If they can do that with lots of money, then they would not need to invade. 

Finally, from my second hand information concerning the Taiwanese . . . historically the natives have a distinct culture and history from mainland China. The newcomer after 1945 are fervently anti communists. I do not know the current trends in Taiwan, but after so many years separated, I would wager that the cultural and psychology shift of the people will make merging with main land China through anything other than economic ties could be difficult.

How would Texan feel if they wake up tomorrow and find that they are now part of Mexico. O . K . bad example. Not Texas but maybe New Mexico? 



bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 15015 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
LOL. As we have seen in Libya, a lot of young, highly skilled and educated work force will learn fast the ways or war and become an effective resistance force (given enough arms support).

Doubtful the military establishment would readily cede leadership.


Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
I wonder if the Taiwanese have the mandatory service for their citizens. If yes, then most of the populous would have a head start over the Libyans.

They have.....

http://www.wri-irg.org/node/6311

Quote:
"Taiwan's Military Service Act, amended on 2 February 2000, stipulates that military service is mandatory for male citizens of Taiwan (Taiwan 2 Feb. 2000, Art. 1). Military conscription may begin on the first of January of the year following that in which a male turns eighteen years old and may be terminated on the thirty-first of December of the year in which he turns forty, known as the 'Male's Service Age'. There is no age restriction for termination of service for officers and junior officers."

This advisory may be closer to home.....

http://acs.ait.org.tw/military.html

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
Ah, the question is was it documented with the same scholastic integrity of a non-partisan text or was it embellished too much to show the Great Chairman Mao in a good light that it would be useless for study?

They could then take a leaf from the Art of War by Sun Tzu for enlightenment.   

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):

For one city, this may work. For a whole Island? Well, you just have to look at Tibet for an alternative example.

Check out the part on Hong Kong in the link below.

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 29):
Finally, from my second hand information concerning the Taiwanese . . . historically the natives have a distinct culture and history from mainland China. The newcomer after 1945 are fervently anti communists. I do not know the current trends in Taiwan, but after so many years separated, I would wager that the cultural and psychology shift of the people will make merging with main land China through anything other than economic ties could be difficult.

The following provide an interesting insight.....

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FC18Ad01.html



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 15011 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 28):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

And two Ohio SSGNs would carry almost our entire inventory of anti-ship Tomahawks (unless they've built a bunch of TASMs in the last few years).
"(unless they've built a bunch of TASMs in the last few years).'

As far as I know, all block 4 tomahawk missiles are capable of being used for anti-shipping... This would put there numbers in the K's.

rgds,



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 14964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 31):
As far as I know, all block 4 tomahawk missiles are capable of being used for anti-shipping... This would put there numbers in the K's.

I wasn't aware that the standard block 4s had radars, and I can't imagine going optical for the ASM role.

I'm not sure why the USN would care to build many anti-shipping Tomahawks right now - there simply aren't enough targets to go around. And that can change only slowly - if and when the PLAN goes on a surface ship building spree, we'll have plenty of time to match that with 10x TASM builds.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 12 months 20 hours ago) and read 14948 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 32):
I wasn't aware that the standard block 4s had radars, and I can't imagine going optical for the ASM role.

I'm not sure why the USN would care to build many anti-shipping Tomahawks right now - there simply aren't enough targets to go around. And that can change only slowly - if and when the PLAN goes on a surface ship building spree, we'll have plenty of time to match that with 10x TASM builds.

I didn't say they had radars. Only that the Tomahawk program has been updated and enhanced, as one would expect over all these years of front line service. I would hardly believe that the 28+ year old design RGM/UGM-109B (TASM) would still be the cutting edge... No?

Here is a press release from Raytheon a few years ago...

Raytheon Develops Anti-Surface Warfare Capability for Tomahawk Block IV Missile

May 4, 2009

TUCSON, Ariz., May 4, 2009 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company has developed a technology plan to enhance moving target capabilities for the combat-proven Tomahawk Block IV missile. The technology will enable naval forces to effectively engage moving maritime surface targets and conduct anti-surface warfare missions.

"This capability will allow the warfighter to attack a new tactical target set from more than 900 nautical miles (1035 statue miles)," said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile System's Air Warfare Systems' product line. "Raytheon's technology road map is the first step toward a rapid-development effort that will deliver a single, affordable, multi-mission missile capable of land attack and anti-surface warfare operations."



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 14928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 33):
I didn't say they had radars. Only that the Tomahawk program has been updated and enhanced, as one would expect over all these years of front line service. I would hardly believe that the 28+ year old design RGM/UGM-109B (TASM) would still be the cutting edge... No?

Here is a press release from Raytheon a few years ago...

Raytheon Develops Anti-Surface Warfare Capability for Tomahawk Block IV Missile

May 4, 2009

TUCSON, Ariz., May 4, 2009 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company has developed a technology plan to enhance moving target capabilities for the combat-proven Tomahawk Block IV missile. The technology will enable naval forces to effectively engage moving maritime surface targets and conduct anti-surface warfare missions.

"This capability will allow the warfighter to attack a new tactical target set from more than 900 nautical miles (1035 statue miles)," said Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon Missile System's Air Warfare Systems' product line. "Raytheon's technology road map is the first step toward a rapid-development effort that will deliver a single, affordable, multi-mission missile capable of land attack and anti-surface warfare operations."

Which doesn't really sound like a current capability. Although I certainly think it’s reasonable (and desirable) to have multi-purpose missiles.

But the problem remains - how do you engage a surface force that can move at 30kts, after two hours of flight time, without radar? You could track externally, and feed updates to the missiles, but that's fraught with difficulties, not least having an accurate way to track a surface force from 900nm away. With a radar, the missile just needs to pop up high enough that the huge radar reflector that is most ships is not over the horizon (3000ft will get a clean view out to 60nm, and you'll be able to see the superstructure, at least of larger vessels, fair bit past that). An optical search from those distances would be much more problematic.

Hitting a stationary target is obviously vastly easier, and optical terminal guidance works well for that, but with a bit of coaxing, you could probably have convinced a block 1 Tomahawk to do that.

I'm not saying that the current inventory doesn't have a useful anti-ship capability, but I'm not familiar with it.

FWIW, I think some of the old TASMs were part of the stock that got upgrade to block 4, perhaps these kept their radars and anti-ship missions.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (2 years 12 months 8 hours ago) and read 14866 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 30):

The following provide an interesting insight.....

Thanks, sounds like a very passionate person. Perfect leader or a resistance movement.  
Quoting rwessel (Reply 34):
Quoting mffoda (Reply 33):

Didn't Raytheon won the SDB-II. From what I hear, that multi-purpose seeker is really good. Wouldn't be surprised if they use the same technology for the Tomahawk.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 11 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 14692 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 23):
Wolfpack? A single US Ohio class SSGN is a self contained wolfpack! With 154+ cruise missiles and a full complement of torpedo's to boot... You would not need a massive forward placed fleet.

In this scenario those are all first strike weapons, something which the US has been keeping out of the hands of Taiwan, anyone believe that the US would launch a pre-emptive strike on mainland China if they see forces being built up for a possible invasion, that would be an act of war ona nuclear capable nation no?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 25):
Not a fair comparison . . . but the Brits did relatively well during the Falklands Campaign.

I am basing my responses on prevention or the invasion, but to follow your lead, if China does land forces and occupies some territory, do you expect the US to launch an invasion to remove Chinese troops from territory that was originally captured by rebel military forces back in 1945?

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 25):
What are the range of the attack sub cruise missiles? Would they need to be deployed in straight to have an impact?

In my line of thinking the attack subs would be there for their torpedoes and Harpoons to sink ships heading across the straits. Their inventory of such weapons is greater thant the SSGN's.

Quoting rwessel (Reply 32):
I'm not sure why the USN would care to build many anti-shipping Tomahawks right now - there simply aren't enough targets to go around. And that can change only slowly - if and when the PLAN goes on a surface ship building spree, we'll have plenty of time to match that with 10x TASM builds.

If China wants to go across the straits, what type of boats would they need to get troops across, not saying I expect something like the past Cuban boat lifts but if a mass of small boats start crossing with Migs flying cover, the US first option is to control the air, Navy ships may have to resort to guns, can current torpedoes target wooden hull ships?


User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2338 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (2 years 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 14640 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting par13del (Reply 36):
If China wants to go across the straits, what type of boats would they need to get troops across, not saying I expect something like the past Cuban boat lifts but if a mass of small boats start crossing with Migs flying cover, the US first option is to control the air, Navy ships may have to resort to guns, can current torpedoes target wooden hull ships?

They can, but if there are a couple of thousand wooden hull landing craft chugging across the Taiwan Strait, there aren't going to be enough torpedoes to go around. The entire U.S. inventory of Mk 48 torpedoes is around 1000. A Los Angeles will usually have fewer than 25 on board. And shooting a three million dollar torpedo at a wooden hulled landing craft seems inefficient.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 14468 times:

A glimpse at the PLAN's potential.....

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 39, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 14444 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 36):
Chinese troops from territory that was originally captured by rebel military forces back in 1945?

Well, at the time, the military force that "captured" Taiwan was recognized as the true government of China. The Red Chinese was not recognized as the "government" of China until much later.

Quoting par13del (Reply 36):

If China wants to go across the straits, what type of boats would they need to get troops across,

The "wooden" boat scenario would not help much in an invasion force. These boats may help in getting troops to the Taiwan, but that scenario would be too inefficient and is put the planner in to the whims weather condition. (Remember, at Dunkirk the British was able to evacuate their infantry with the small flotilla, but had to leave all their heavy equipment behind.)

What the Chinese need are roll-on roll-off "Car" transports to transport their mechanized equipment. (Don't know if those can handle tanks). Since the Chinese don't export many cars, I would assume they would not have many of these types of ships on hand. The container cargo ships may be use full, but they would not be efficient at transporting tanks either, at least not at the initial invasion stage.

These larger ships can be targeted. No need to target the smaller ships. What is good if you have infantry when you have no way to supply them or move them around the battle field?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14363 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 36):
but if a mass of small boats start crossing with Migs flying cover, the US first option is to control the air, Navy ships may have to resort to guns, can current torpedoes target wooden hull ships?
Quoting rwessel (Reply 37):
And shooting a three million dollar torpedo at a wooden hulled landing craft seems inefficient.

This may be the future option.....

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/C...26_tch_BAE_ship_laser.grid-6x2.jpg

Quote:
"Like peanut butter and chocolate, the U.S. Navy thinks machine guns and lasers are two great tastes that taste great together. They hope the combination of old school lead with new school 'pew' will better protect their ships from attack by smaller boats.

BAE Systems, a British defense firm, already makes the giant machine guns that protect warships from approaching watercraft. But yesterday, Boeing announced that they will team up with BAE Systems to develop a solid-state laser that would work in tandem with the already potent weapon."


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43902485...future_of_technology/#.Tlv1FGHSlc8



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14309 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 39):
The "wooden" boat scenario would not help much in an invasion force. These boats may help in getting troops to the Taiwan, but that scenario would be too inefficient and is put the planner in to the whims weather condition. (Remember, at Dunkirk the British was able to evacuate their infantry with the small flotilla, but had to leave all their heavy equipment behind.)

What the Chinese need are roll-on roll-off "Car" transports to transport their mechanized equipment. (Don't know if those can handle tanks). Since the Chinese don't export many cars, I would assume they would not have many of these types of ships on hand. The container cargo ships may be use full, but they would not be efficient at transporting tanks either, at least not at the initial invasion stage.

These larger ships can be targeted. No need to target the smaller ships. What is good if you have infantry when you have no way to supply them or move them around the battle field?

The Chinese will need modern amphibious assault assets, and in large quantities. The bulk of the Chinese amphibious assault force is made up of LST's, which need to beach themselves on a suitable landing zone to unload (that, or land using traditional landing craft). And since the suitable locations are well known, those locations will be heavily mined and defended. It is only until very recently have the Chinese switched to building LPD's (only 2 in existence, with one building). With the Chinese amphib fleet spread out across 3 separate fleets, it is highly unlikely that the Chinese will be able to muster enough assets to successfully land and reinforce an invasion, especially once you factor in expected losses, now, and well into the future.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 14057 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 14):
I doubt how much time the F16s can buy. I would expect the Chinese will destroy the few airports before any air war can begin. A large number of mobile SAMs, plus a lot of SSMs against coastal bases and cross strait ships, will probably buy the more time.

Alot an updated F-16 block 52 or higher would be a handlefull for a chinese pilot in an SU-30

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 14):
Bottom line, Taiwan, even with US help, is in a no-win situation if China decides to take over. Luckily China is more busy making money, buying properties in and sending tourists to Taiwan while many Taiwanese are living and making tonnes of money in China.

I am not totally sure where everyone thinks that Taiwan would be an easy win for the Chinese their military is much better trained than their counter parts in the mainland while small in size they would put up a fight, realistically china would have to nuke it to take it, then what would be the point gaining a island that couldnt be inhabited for 20,000 years or so.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 43, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13676 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Bush I approved the original Peace Fenghuang program at this very time in 92 when GD started mumbling about running down the production line in Ft Worth and he was looking like he might even lose his home state in the election. This from a person who spent his entire 2 terms as VP and 3/4 of his presidency doing every thing he could to prevent a sale- Reagan had actually promised a sale during his nominating convention. Obama will do the same when the chips are down for LM in an election year.

An upgraded block 20 with AESA will be awesome. In many ways we will have a rehash of the block 20 sale, where a "dumbed down" F16 is actually better than the latest production versions. The block 20s avionics- same as the NATO MLU - were only fitted to USAF F16s starting 10 years ago in the CCIP program.

The article is mistaken about the engine upgrade. The 220E is a 100/200 upgraded to -220 standard..ROCAF block 20s were delivered with the -220. Now Pratt did talk about developing a -220P which would incorporate some hardware from the -229 and have thrust somewhere between the -229 and -220. ROC did look at it a few years ago but couldn't decide if they wanted a cheaper upgrade-220P but be a unique customer with all the problems that entails - or pay more for getting new -229s and be part of a larger customer base. The block 20s were built with some structures from the 30/40/50 which allow higher TOW without the heavier empty weight of the stock 30/40/50. An engine upgrade will allow use of this unique feature though they will never have the payload range of a block 50.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 44, posted (2 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 13681 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 39):
Quoting par13del (Reply 36):
Chinese troops from territory that was originally captured by rebel military forces back in 1945?

Well, at the time, the military force that "captured" Taiwan was recognized as the true government of China. The Red Chinese was not recognized as the "government" of China until much later.

Strictly no body captured anything . The Japanese surrendered in 45 to the Republic of China forces and handed back to "Chinese" authority Taiwan which had been a Japanese colony for the first half of the 20th century. The Peoples Republic was founded in 49 and has never controlled any territory ruled by the present ROC/Taiwan government.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13621 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 42):
then what would be the point gaining a island that couldnt be inhabited for 20,000 years or so.

lol, tell that to the 1.17m people living in Hiroshima and the 446 000 in Nagasaki.


User currently offlinewvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 13477 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 45):
lol, tell that to the 1.17m people living in Hiroshima and the 446 000 in Nagasaki.

There is a huge difference beteween today nuclear weapons and yesterdays hydrogen and atoms bombs (not saying one way or another that it was right or wrong) just pointing out that the current day effects would be totally different.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 47, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 13359 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Has congress ever legislated a requirement to sell arms overseas before??
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...h-for-f_16c§d-sale-to-taiwan.html


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 13329 times:

If the Chinese were smart, then they would have developed low yield nuke that could destroy a large base, or even a city with as little radiation leftovers as possible. Im sure they are capable of making a old style A bomb.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 13304 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 48):

If the Chinese were smart, then they would have developed low yield nuke that could destroy a large base, or even a city with as little radiation leftovers as possible. Im sure they are capable of making a old style A bomb

You mean like a Reverse Neutron bomb? Smart? ... Maybe because they can't steal the plans off the Internet. 



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13238 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-14913785

This article raises several issues.

Will the F5 have to be retired, (partly linked to the cause of this crash).

How much will it cost to extend the lives of the F5's.

If the F5's can not be extended, then it puts more pressure on the need for new F16's.

Could Taiwan be sold F16's with less capability.

Is a deal of this type acceptable to Taiwan. If not, would another type be available.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 13244 times:

The Chinese are playing the long game. 25, 50, 100 years... scoff at it all you want. First they copy, then they modify, and before you know it, they have their own design. If they thought there would be no backlash, they would bomb the guts out of Taiwan right now. They havent finished bleeding the western world of money... so they are playing nice right now.

User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 52, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 13216 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 51):
The Chinese are playing the long game. 25, 50, 100 years... scoff at it all you want. First they copy, then they modify, and before you know it, they have their own design. If they thought there would be no backlash, they would bomb the guts out of Taiwan right now. They havent finished bleeding the western world of money... so they are playing nice right now.

   so true.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 53, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 13190 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 51):
The Chinese are playing the long game. 25, 50, 100 years..

The politburo is just like any other political creature. They can only think as far as their term in office. In this case it may be a life term . . . but still . . .

As the former Soviet have shown, revolution can happen in a blink of an eye. And one way to foment or instigate a revolution is to start a war that you can't win or that will drain your resources . . . as an invasion of Taiwan would surely will.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 51):
They havent finished bleeding the western world of money.

Right now they only got IOU's.  

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 13146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 50):
Will the F5 have to be retired, (partly linked to the cause of this crash).

At some point this was always going to happen. Two aircraft going down like this is probably not due to a mechanical issue though, unless one hit the other first so its unlikely they will suddenly ground them all now.
Remember though the USAF have T38s which are even older and still expected to go till the end of this decade or later!

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 50):
How much will it cost to extend the lives of the F5's.

AIDC offered the ROCAF a F5 upgrade which was essentially almost a F5G but they declined about 10 years ago. Money is always tight (even with their huge forex reserves!).

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 50):
Could Taiwan be sold F16's with less capability.

Yes, as my post pointed out the US could claim to provide a new version which by nomenclature is "less capable" but in many ways is actually as capable if not more so vis the block 20 A/B at air-air missions is probably better than any C/D model.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 50):
Is a deal of this type acceptable to Taiwan. If not, would another type be available.

Hard to believe they will get an F35s anytime soon if there is reluctance to sell F16s. The unknown is what the French will be willing to offer in terms of a Mirage 2000 upgrade and if Taiwan will accept it. Given they have settled their Lafayette scandal they may be willing to deal with each other again (plus the ROC treasury has 600 million $ in cash they weren't expecting this fiscal year!). We should not forget that in 92 part of the impetus for the US to sell F16s was Paris' willingness to sell Mirages. In fact the ROCAF brass were sufficiently annoyed at getting " dumbed down" F16s that they wanted the whole reequipment program to go to Dassault but the politicians said no - good decision in hindsight given costs of flying the Mirage vs F16. I wouldn't rule out a Rafale sale if only a block 20 MLU is offered and no new planes. ROCAF needs to replace the F5s, which even though they are mostly used for advanced training today, they will need more planes as the block 20s are withdrawn from active service for upgrades. Another option is to get new IDFs for the F5 replacement and IDF LIFTs for the AT3. With an over 100 aircraft requirement putting the IDF back in production may make sense especially with the IDF upgrade program now in full swing.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 55, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 13106 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 53):
As the former Soviet have shown, revolution can happen in a blink of an eye. And one way to foment or instigate a revolution is to start a war that you can't win or that will drain your resources . . . as an invasion of Taiwan would surely will.

But that is why I think China will prevail where the USSR failed. The Soviets tried to win a money pissing contest with a capitalist country. Didnt work out so well. China on the other hand is taking the strength of capitalism, and turning it on the west. Also, the Soviets were making their country poorer and poorer... China is getting richer and richer. As long as the western countries are buying Chinese products and not shipping anything there, they will continue to get richer. The moment the west hits bottom will be the day China is at its peak.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 56, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13020 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 55):
China is getting richer and richer. As long as the western countries are buying Chinese products and not shipping anything there, they will continue to get richer.

A population getting richer can produce another form of revolution through unintentional consequences . . .

One question . . . as we all know a good pilot can do great things with a mediocre airplane. So, how well trained are the Taiwanese pilots com paired to the main land counterpart? Have any Taiwanese pilots cycled though Red Flag?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 57, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 12965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 56):
One question . . . as we all know a good pilot can do great things with a mediocre airplane. So, how well trained are the Taiwanese pilots com paired to the main land counterpart? Have any Taiwanese pilots cycled though Red Flag?

ROCAF pilots average @200+ hrs/year. Which is a whole lot more than their PRC counterparts, who don't do much night/poor visibility flying either.

ROC pilots have never publicly been acknowledged to be at red flag . They certainly wouldn't be flying as a ROC unit - in fact they are still not allowed to use their national insignia on the F16s at Luke unlike the Singaporeans or the Germans or Dutch who have permanent training units in the US. Remember as far as the USG is concerned the ROC doesn't exist. Active duty US officers are even today not allowed to go to Taiwan in an official capacity. US State dept officers who go to the American Institute Taiwan for tours at the AIT - the"US embassy" in Taipei - are officially are on leave of absence from the USG.

The Taiwanese training unit at Luke, the 21st FSGamblers, 56th TFW, has won the Luke award, given to the best unit there, more than any other unit since they started flying there in 97. They routinely beat active duty AF F16, Navy and MC F18s in air air exercises though its not a totally fair comparison as the US pilots are just starting out and the Taiwanese ones are there for advanced training and the US instructors in the 21st sometimes mix in with their trainees in these exercises against the US units. And for the first few years they were beating the US units with AIM9M/Sparrow when the US units had AIM9M/Amraam and sometimes JHMCS.


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 58, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12903 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 57):

While new fighters are important, seems to me that the training may be just as crucial in the defense of Taiwan.
Hope that doesn't get canned because of US-China politics.

Thanks for the info.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 12909 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 58):
While new fighters are important, seems to me that the training may be just as crucial in the defense of Taiwan.
Hope that doesn't get canned because of US-China politics.

Training is indeed key. Domestic Taiwan politics is more likely to can it though. Just a year or two ago there were issues with appropriations for the Luke unit. The other issue is that Luke will transition to being a F35 training center and unless the USAF are ok having a single F16 unit still there the 21st will have to move. There has been no word of where the Taiwan unit, if it still exists , will move to. Others eg Dutch are getting their eggs all lined up and set up at Tuscon already having moved from Ohio last year.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12848 times:

Obama decided not to sell new F16s, and offers upgrade package.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...s/2011/09/16/gIQAmtnJYK_story.html

The IDF may get a break.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 12828 times:

Dont sell the new fighters, sell them some used... F-35s. Might be a little off spec, might need a new valve or aluminum casting...

NO NEW FIGHTERS


But really, if someone with balls was in the Whitehouse, they could bring old F-16s over, haul it into a hanger, and roll out a new F-16 with the markings of the old one and fly it back. Everyone could marvel at how Lockheed did a great job of making the old fighters seem 'like new'.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 62, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 12824 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To be honest an upgraded block 20 with AESA will be far better than a off the shelf block 50 except for payload range and no administration - GOP or Dem- wants the ROCAF brass to think they can bomb Shanghai which is why the they still don't have HARM or jdams either.

The real issue is without 60 odd new planes and retiring the F5s and pulling block 20s out of service for the upgrade the available number of aircraft will be down. Though it may not be as bad a problem as it looks numbers wise as they are a little short of pilots today!

Bring on the IDF again!

Could someone ? NG - use an IDF LIFT for the USAF TX program? That would really be poking it in LMs eye!


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12687 times:

Maybe Israel can sell them a copy of the Lavi plans  

User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 64, posted (2 years 11 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 12595 times:

Does Taiwan have nukes? If not, they should seriously think about getting some...or building some. Nothing says, "maybe we should negotiate some more", like the other guys having some radioactive projectiles.

It may sound crazy but it worked for N. Korea...notice that all talk of military action ground to a halt when Kim made that mountain go BOOM...?



What the...?
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 65, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 12555 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
Does Taiwan have nukes? If not, they should seriously think about getting some...or building some.

They did try way back. CIA found out and terminated the program. Now that Taiwan knows that they can no longer depend on US, would they try again? I would think it would be easy for Taiwan to make a nuke these days, however it could be suicidal if China finds out.

IMO Taiwan can certainly build a lot of cheap missiles which could be the most cost effective deterrent. When crazy and desperate, they can easily make them dirty and it will scare people enough, as evident in the Japan nuclear plant disaster.

In reality, China's economy is progressing so fast and there are so much economic synergy and inter dependency with Taiwan that IMO given time a merger can occur peacefully. Culturally there is little difference between the two.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 62):
GOP or Dem- wants the ROCAF brass to think they can bomb Shanghai which is why the they still don't have HARM or jdams either.

Taiwan seems to have already developed their own HARM and JDAMs for their IDF-NG. The no new F16 may help the locals to get necessary funding for new built IDF-NG. Current funding is only for upgrading existing IDFs to NG which was already certified by the ROCAF a few years back.


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12542 times:

Quoting cosmofly (Reply 65):
In reality, China's economy is progressing so fast and there are so much economic synergy and inter dependency with Taiwan that IMO given time a merger can occur peacefully. Culturally there is little difference between the two.

Really? I'll bet those POOR ROC refugee's can't wait!!

Wow!!! We already have the "New England States"... When can we expect the Canadian, Australian and the Kiwi's to be on board?  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 11 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12537 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 66):
Quoting cosmofly (Reply 65):
In reality, China's economy is progressing so fast and there are so much economic synergy and inter dependency with Taiwan that IMO given time a merger can occur peacefully. Culturally there is little difference between the two.

Really? I'll bet those POOR ROC refugee's can't wait!!

Probably somewhat like the Hong Kong merger and the Taiwanese may even have more say in its arm forces. CX is doing pretty well as a Chinese Airline.  

Who knows, Taiwan's ruling party, which was found by the guy whose was no less, if not more, respected as Mao, may becoming a competing party to the communist in a post merger.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 12420 times:

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 46):

There is a huge difference beteween today nuclear weapons and yesterdays hydrogen and atoms bombs (not saying one way or another that it was right or wrong) just pointing out that the current day effects would be totally different.

Whoa, there!.....whichever, please don't forget that we're just a few miles down south, and RP's northernmost islet is actually closer to Taiwan than Luzon.   

Quoting trex8 (Reply 54):
Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 50):
Is a deal of this type acceptable to Taiwan. If not, would another type be available.

Hard to believe they will get an F35s anytime soon if there is reluctance to sell F16s.

There had been reports of Taiwanese interest in the JSF in the past.....

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7733204&c=AIR&s=TOP

Quote:
"TAIPEI - In response to news the U.S. has decided to decline Taiwan's request for new F-16C/D fighter aircraft, Andrew Yang, Taiwan's deputy minister of defense for policy, said the air force would consider the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in future discussions with the U.S.

[.....]

Over the past ten years, Taiwan has expressed interest in both the vertical/short take-off and/or landing (V/STOL) AV-8B Harrier jump jet and the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) fighter to cope with the anticipated destruction of conventional runways by China's arsenal of 1,300 short-range ballistic missiles.

Taiwan submitted a letter of intent (LOI) for a briefing on future price and availability (P&A) data for the F-35 in May 2002. In the LOI, obtained by Defense News, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO) requested P&A data for 120 F-35B STOVL aircraft. TECRO is Taiwan's de facto embassy in Washington, D.C.

The letter said China's air breathing and theater missile capability threatens Taiwan's ability to maintain air superiority. 'The primary purpose of this acquisition is to provide a credible response capability in the event that our air bases become non-functional due to initial air, missile, and special operations force attack,' the LOI said.

A Taiwan defense industry source said the MND modified its requirement in 2004 with a bolder request for 60 F-35B STOVL and 150 F-35A conventional take-off and landing aircraft."



As the official noted, even if the request was successful, there were still the big questions about the budget and personnel. However, funding cuts for the F-35B variant could sharpen its proponents' resourcefulness.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 59):
Just a year or two ago there were issues with appropriations for the Luke unit. The other issue is that Luke will transition to being a F35 training center and unless the USAF are ok having a single F16 unit still there the 21st will have to move.

Ahh, but the issue becomes moot should they be allowed access to F-35s.  
Quoting trex8 (Reply 62):
Could someone ? NG - use an IDF LIFT for the USAF TX program?

Too late.....Northrop Grumman has already indicated they would partner with BAE Systems.  
Quoting trex8 (Reply 62):
That would really be poking it in LMs eye!

True...but even though it's still just a concept, Boeing's candidate might be the real pain in LM's eyes!  



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 69, posted (2 years 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 12382 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What a sweet 100th anniversary present for the Republic Of China in 19 days,Chung Hua Min Kuo Wan Sui Wan Sui!

Aesa radar, jdams, AIM9X and SFW included, only HARM missing.

Lets go kick some Chicom a..!

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/TECRO_11-39.pdf

and 500 million more for the Luke unit, seems they may be there for a few years still!

http://www.dsca.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2011/TECRO_11-19.pdf


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (2 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 12108 times:

Upgrades are as worthless as teats on a bull without new engines and zero-timed airframes. This is ignorant and junior-weight politics at best. Taiwan ought to turn to the Gripen, Rafale, or even new MiG-35's and tell Obama to smoke another pack.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...house-bickering-and-taiwans-f-16s/


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 71, posted (2 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 12107 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 70):
worthless as teats on a bull

Speaking of "teats on a bull" Perhaps you missed the overwhelming issue regarding selling arms to the ROC? One, really only need look at past purchases by the ROC to consider why? (Gripen, Rafale) You will see F-22E/F's and F-35H's before you see one of those European platforms!  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 72, posted (2 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 12030 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 71):
Perhaps you missed the overwhelming issue regarding selling arms to the ROC?

The Obama Administration makes the Carter Administration look like George Washington reincarnate - even Jimmy got this one right with the Taiwan Relations Act - which part do you disagree with?

Quote:

This act also requires the United States "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

What part of jobs and exports in a beleaguered industry do you disagree with? Webster is going to have to add Barrack Obama's name to their next Thesaurus edition as an antonym to the word "jobs"


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11964 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 70):
Upgrades are as worthless as teats on a bull without new engines and zero-timed airframes. This is ignorant and junior-weight politics at best. Taiwan ought to turn to the Gripen, Rafale, or even new MiG-35's and tell Obama to smoke another pack.

New engines are nice but not absolutely necessary especially if air-ground is not the main task and in many ways the ROCAF has had a engine upgrade program being evaluated for years and separate to a true MLU. Pratt even looked at using a -220P with -229 hardware. The highest time block 20s have at most 3000hr, (there are only 4 ROCAF pilots with more than 2000hr on type and a similar number with 1000+ hrs). They are good for double that even without an upgrade. The block 20s were actually built with many block 30/40 airframe components (GD had no suppliers for unique A/B structures by the time the block 20s were made so used what they had off the shelf- block 30/40 parts) which were strengthened (compared to a typical block 15 A/B) so they should last longer than earlier A/Bs for sure.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 72):
The Obama Administration makes the Carter Administration look like George Washington reincarnate - even Jimmy got this one right with the Taiwan Relations Act - which part do you disagree with?

Let us not forget the original request for pricing and a letter of offer for C/ds went to the previous administration who sat on it as GWB wanted to go to the Olympics in Beijing, then punted the hot potato to the new administration. Just as GHW Bush did in 92 I see BHO agreeing to a sale of new F16s when he visits Ft Worth in an election year! Though to be honest, why the ROCAF would want off the shelf block 50s with aesa etc equipped block 20 MLUs in the fleet is beyond me. Jimmy had the TRA rammed down his throat by Congress and with veto proof majorities- there was like what one vote in each chamber against it!

A better idea may be to lease them some older block 40s to make up the numbers while the block 20s are upgraded and airframes pulled from service. ( We did that with T38s when the F16s were ordered, the F104s being retired and the IDFs just being put into service) . Upgrade all the IDF fleet- the F5s are actually only used today for advanced training. They actually have a pilot shortage so even if total numbers of planes are down from a few years ago, its not like they can fly them all anyway. By the time the vast majority of the block 20s are upgraded, there may even be F35s on the production line looking for an export customer!  


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 74, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 11904 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 72):
Jimmy got this one right with the Taiwan Relations Act - which part do you disagree with?

In Jimmy's day, 90% of "Stuff" wasn't made in China and the Chinese did not have the US by the balls with Treasury Bonds.

Even Toulouse is beholden the the Chinese. Why else would they build an A320 plant in China?

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 11807 times:

If the US will not sell uprated F16's, then what chance F35's.

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 11805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 74):
Even Toulouse is beholden the the Chinese. Why else would they build an A320 plant in China?

Same reason MDC made MD80s in Shanghai- cheaper labor and local market! Same reason Boeing drags its feet everytime the ROC MND asks about offsets for Boeing arms systems sold to Taipei- eg for the Apaches, till the US DoD makes them respond - they are brownnosing to Beijing too. The market and $$ shareholder value is bigger selling to PRC than any weapons system to ROC.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 75):
If the US will not sell uprated F16's, then what chance F35's.

Today maybe, not tomorrow. They weren't going to sell them the amraams, Kidd destroyers, Apaches, Pac3 Patriot either - till they did! Its less a question of if but when for most of these things. Plus the off the shelf block 50 C/Ds aren't "uprated", the block 20 MLU will be - leaving aside payload range the block 20 MLU is a better plane and will have a far more advanced avionics fit than any block 50!


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 77, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11898 times:

Taiwan is just a nasty irritant for the US. They would do nothing more than temporarily 'unlike' China if Taiwan was reduced to radioactive glass.

Taiwan will hopefully learn this lesson and look elsewhere for their military hardware. They owe the US nothing and can pay for more guns with real cash...without, ironically, having to go to the PRC for a loan.

Russia or Sweden would probably be more than happy to sell some aircraft for hard currency. That, maybe some subs, and some home grown WMD's would keep the PRC at bay for a while.



What the...?
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 11900 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 74):
In Jimmy's day, 90% of "Stuff" wasn't made in China and the Chinese did not have the US by the balls with Treasury Bonds.

Even Toulouse is beholden the the Chinese. Why else would they build an A320 plant in China?

China only holds like 10% of the debt owed by the United States, and they only get a return on their investment when A), they don't go to war with the United States, and B) when the US via a robust economy comes through and pays good on those markers the Chinese invested. China has no interest in either a physical conflict nor an economic conflict with the United States. Moral of the story - China is all bark here, and letting Taiwan beef up their defenses to help keep the Chinese in check, is multiple dividends for the US.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 79, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 11889 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
Taiwan will hopefully learn this lesson and look elsewhere for their military hardware.

Like where? Mars??

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 77):
Russia or Sweden would probably be more than happy to sell some aircraft for hard currency.

Russia has a very very long border with China and they have no intention of upsetting a major neighbour (who have gotten into real firefights with their forces in living memory) and are also one of their biggest export customers for weapons. Sweden?? Are you serious? When the Brits and Germans and Italians wont sell to Taiwan , you expect Sweden???


User currently offlinebikerthai From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 2093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 80, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 11874 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 79):
Russia has a very very long border with China and they have no intention of upsetting a major neighbour (who have gotten into real firefights with their forces in living memory) and are also one of their biggest export customers for weapons.

Actually I for one thinks that Russia would more likely sell weapons to Taiwan than any one else. China have not been buying much from Russia anyway because they want to build their own.

Consider that India would be more of a military rival to China, and Russia has no hesitation in selling fighter planes to the Indians.

But again, the Taiwanese is a much smaller fish.

bikerthai



Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 81, posted (2 years 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 11781 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 80):
Consider that India would be more of a military rival to China, and Russia has no hesitation in selling fighter planes to the Indians.

Thats been going on since independence from the Brits and started during periods when PRC/USSR relations were close. USSR has sold nothing ever to ROC since the communists took over. Now if only Chiang Ching Kuos Russian in laws were able to smooth things over... 


The French are the wild card. If they are desperate enough for a Rafale export sale they may thumb their noses at Beijing. The Mirage sale to Taiwan allowed Dassault to develop the -5 and MBDA the Mica for the AA and kick start Rafale development. But would Taipei want to revisit the relationship with Paris given the lafayette commissions problems.

Here's a thought, how about leasing ROC some early F15s?


User currently onlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5416 posts, RR: 30
Reply 82, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 11757 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 79):
Like where? Mars??

Like the US is the only supplier of arms on the planet??

Quoting trex8 (Reply 79):

Russia has a very very long border with China and they have no intention of upsetting a major neighbour (who have gotten into real firefights with their forces in living memory) and are also one of their biggest export customers for weapons. Sweden?? Are you serious? When the Brits and Germans and Italians wont sell to Taiwan , you expect Sweden???

I don't expect anything...I'm just listing possible sources of aircraft...especially since Sweden has been willing to flog the Gripen to anybody looking.

Russia, in case you haven't been reading the news, is just fine supplying billions of dollars of hardware to India, which also is a neighbor with China and has a history of conflict. The Russians don't give a damn who they sell to, as long as it means cash in the coffers.



What the...?
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 83, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11728 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Like the US is the only supplier of arms on the planet??

The only one who regularly since 1949 has sold major weapon systems to Taiwan. Except for the French who did one time since 1949 sell some 20 years ago and have said they don't want to ever do it again - ok so the French version of the statements say no offensive systems but the Chinese version doesn't mention that bit!

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
Russia, in case you haven't been reading the news, is just fine supplying billions of dollars of hardware to India, which also is a neighbor with China and has a history of conflict. The Russians don't give a damn who they sell to, as long as it means cash in the coffers.

See my answer to Bikerthai. The Russians do give a damn who they sell to, maybe not as much as the US. But Taipei is not in their vocabulary because they sell billions to Beijing annually still and when half the Russian army is still along the Chinese border you ain't going to upset them for peanuts.

India is an adversary of the PRC and certainly have had their fair share of border clashes but Taiwan is party to a civil war and civil wars, especially ones which question the whole legitimacy and existence of your national status, tend to be much nastier affairs with people having longer memories! Just as the Chinese nationalists saw the Japanese invaders as a wart and the communists as a cancer, the present Beijing government see the Indians as an unsightly blemish and inconvenience but the ROC in Taiwan as a terminal cancer. There is nothing that can upset the modern Chinese psyche , be it communist or nationalist, than to suggest Taiwan should not be reunified with the mainland. There are lots of things the present day mainland Chinese will not die for, but they will die for Taiwan. Its like Americans stopping the south from seceding, or Canadians stopping Quebec- ok maybe I shouldn't go there! 
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 82):
I don't expect anything...I'm just listing possible sources of aircraft...especially since Sweden has been willing to flog the Gripen to anybody looking.

Sweden won't even openly sell Bofors aa guns to Taiwan! Gripens are not going to happen. No Chicom brownnosing nation in western europe - ie all of them, is going to upset Beijing by selling anything to Taipei unless they can find Uncle Sam to hide behind and do it.


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 84, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 11479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1719781

highlights, F16 upgrade will not begin till first batch (71 planes) IDF upgrades completed in 2 years . Me thinks they need to select and certify the new radar etc too. Rest of the IDF fleet 56 will also be upgraded.

Other recent news stories. Still looking for the 50 trainers to replace the AT3s. AIDC hoping IDF LIFT chosen, M346 in the market (AIDC makes most of that F124 engine).


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11451 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 84):
F16 upgrade will not begin till first batch (71 planes) IDF upgrades completed in 2 years.

Perhaps they're still waiting for new-build Block 50s?.....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...usa-lockheed-idUSTRE78S0EV20110929

Quote:
"(Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) is helping arm U.S. lawmakers for a renewed push to sell its new F-16 fighter jets to Taiwan, not just the Obama administration's planned $5.3 billion upgrade of old ones.

A Lockheed Martin official last week emailed an unsigned memo to lawmakers on Capitol Hill titled 'Taiwan -- The Benefit of New F-16 C/Ds,' two congressional staff members said.

Lockheed's memo to lawmakers was dated September 22, a day after the administration told Congress that it was offering Taiwan a $5.3 billion retrofit of 145 F-16 A/B models sold in the 1990s. Administration officials said a decision had not yet been made on Taiwan's 5-year-old request for 66 new F-16 C/D models valued at $8.3 billion."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 86, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 85):

Perhaps they're still waiting for new-build Block 50s?..

As I've said before BHO will announce a sale in Ft Worth just like GHWB did in 92 - a few months before the election!  

But seriously if they are getting aesa etc in the block 20 MLU, I sure hope they put those on the block "50s" at the outset though I'm sure there is a good market for APG68 parts!! At this point, in terms of capability the only advantage to getting off the shelf block 50s is that they get more planes in the air sooner. But they still can't fly every plane they have with the present pilot shortage! Now that all the IDFs are being upgraded, the need to have something "replace" the F5s is less acute as the IDFs are sufficiently advanced to be a significant leap in capability for the previous F5 units. Upgrade the Mirages and wait for F35B would be my two cents.


User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10736 times:

Quoting JakeOrion (Thread starter):
It boggles the mind of why China would care about this.

I do not find it mind boggling at all, it has always been Chinese policy, and Taiwan is one potential adversary (on many aspects) sitting just at their borders, if I'm not mistaken.

What I find mind-boggling and thought-inducting on that matter, is the attitude of the US.

[Edited 2011-11-02 09:15:54]


rolf
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10722 times:

Quoting rolfen (Reply 87):
What I find mind-boggling and thought-inducting on that matter, is the attitude of the US.

Heaven forbid that the US stand up for one of its Allies, or behind the one of the many Treaties it has sighed with them. Maybe, It just an American thing... You might have a look at the Treaties that were sighed in Europe in the last 100 years, before you comment on US foreign policy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg  



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 89, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 10706 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 88):
Heaven forbid that the US stand up for one of its Allies, or behind the one of the many Treaties it has sighed with them. Maybe, It just an American thing... You might have a look at the Treaties that were sighed in Europe in the last 100 years, before you comment on US foreign policy?

What are you being so aggressive about? I was just saying that this made me think. Do you have any contribution to make regarding that particular point? I never questioned the values or morals of the US, their commitment or anything like that.

Thank you.



rolf
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 90, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10689 times:

Quoting rolfen (Reply 89):
What are you being so aggressive about?

That wasn't me being aggressive, that was Jack Nicholson... 
Quoting rolfen (Reply 89):
Do you have any contribution to make regarding that particular point?

I thought I did make a point? The US has certain Treaties with Taiwan, that include providing military hardware. And it has been fairly consistent in abiding by them for decades.

The fact that some find that mind-boggling is mind-boggling to me?  

What would have happened to Europe if the US had not fulfilled its responsibilities to NATO after WW2?



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 91, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 10634 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 90):
What would have happened to Europe if the US had not fulfilled its responsibilities to NATO after WW2?

Does that have anything to do with me being German? Because if it does, it would be amazing. I have dual citizenship, and only today did I decide to endorse my German citizenship on a.net, instead of the other one. It would be something if everyone started bringing up WW2 (and it's consequences) all the time when discussing with me.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 90):
I thought I did make a point? The US has certain Treaties with Taiwan, that include providing military hardware. And it has been fairly consistent in abiding by them for decades.

I am still not sure how this is relevant. Does it mean that they are not abiding to theses Treaties in this particular instance?

Quote:
The fact that some find that mind-boggling is mind-boggling to me?

I'm just surprised they would deny such a demand, given the history of the US, which you pointed out yourself. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking... maybe it has something to do with the US economy and the Chinese financing a big part of the US debt? But this is just one possible explanation, and part of me hopes that it's not the truth.

[Edited 2011-11-02 14:45:27]


rolf
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 92, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 10617 times:

Quoting rolfen (Reply 91):
Does that have anything to do with me being German?

Answer: No! Germany is my favorite destination in Europe (and I am not of German decent). I was stationed there for several years and have been back for business and pleasure many times. In fact, it was my last overseas holiday (last summer). I brought a couple of friends (Americans) who had never been to Europe. They loved it! Not just because it is beautiful (we were mostly in Berchtesgaden, Munchen & Bad Tolz (Gods Country!   ) Clean and friendly to all visitors.


I hope that covers your suspicions? (I just had to laugh at myself... As I am typing this reply, I am wearing my "Bayern Munchen FC" T-shirt) It is a small world... No?

 
Quoting rolfen (Reply 91):
I am still not sure how this is relevant. Does it mean that they are not abiding to theses Treaties in this particular instance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act

No, It is mostly political posturing.

Quoting rolfen (Reply 91):
maybe it has something to do with the US economy and the Chinese financing a big part of the US debt?

The US/Chinese debt aspect is often overblown in relation to the overall world economy... It reminds of the Japan buying up America debates in the 80's and 90's... Even though they were 5th on the list compared to Canada, England... etc...

They just had slanted eyes... and it was fashionable not to like them... Rather then look the real facts??



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlinerolfen From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 1807 posts, RR: 2
Reply 93, posted (2 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 10529 times:

Quoting mffoda (Reply 92):
No, It is mostly political posturing.

It makes sense.

Quoting mffoda (Reply 92):
Clean and friendly to all visitors.

Glad to see we agree   I love Germany, yet i've never stayed there for more then 3 months at a time.



rolf
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7116 posts, RR: 8
Reply 94, posted (2 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10354 times:

Quoting bikerthai (Reply 80):
Actually I for one thinks that Russia would more likely sell weapons to Taiwan than any one else. China have not been buying much from Russia anyway because they want to build their own.

Consider that India would be more of a military rival to China, and Russia has no hesitation in selling fighter planes to the Indians.

Russia for many years courted India as an additional "bulwark" againt their communist neighbour China, in recent times India has been looking to the West away from Russia, that certainely has created concern for the Russians. Yes they sell weapons to China but that does not mean that they are allies, in my view, sales to China are solely economic, sales to India are economic and political.

If Taiwan wants to purchase military equipment from Russia I believe the Russians would jump at the prospect, hard cash and a mesage to China and the US that they are still relevant in the regional political arena.
The US and China would object, what are their options, Russia would gain an additional foothold so what have they got to loose? They are now a major trading partner with the EU so not much hard complaining will come from that end so...........


User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 95, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 10025 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mffoda (Reply 90):
The US has certain Treaties with Taiwan

There are no foreign treaties with Taiwan requiring US sales of arms. There is US domestic law - Taiwan relations act -requiring the administration to provide sales of defensive weapons. I know its nitpicking but its important. Similarly the US and China have no treaties to limit/wind down arms sales to Taiwan contrary to what you see Beijing at times state. There is an administration policy statement - Shanghai communiques- saying this. US domestic law must be repealed by Congress or squashed by the courts to be void. Administration policy is up to the existing administration and subject to the whims of the incumbent and his NSC/state team.


User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 96, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9969 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 95):
There are no foreign treaties with Taiwan requiring US sales of arms. There is US domestic law - Taiwan relations act -requiring the administration to provide sales of defensive weapons.



U.S. Lawmakers will honor the Taiwan Relations Act. The debate is as you say is how to fulfill the requirement to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan

How do you maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security of the people of Taiwan? That is what we are debating.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 97, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 96):

How do you maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security of the people of Taiwan?

The ESRC seems to be of the opinion that selling new jets to Taiwan is one way of accomplishing that.....

http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=8271348&c=AME&s=AIR

Quote:
"A U.S. congressional commission has recommended the United States sell new fighter aircraft to Taiwan so the Pacific nation can recapitalize its aging fleet of jets.

Although the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission did not mention a specific type of fighter aircraft, Taiwan has a standing request for new Lockheed Martin F-16 multirole jets.

'If you put this in the context of our previous recommendations on this issue on Taiwan, this goes a step farther because this is the first time we've actually recommended the sale,' William Reinsch, chairman of the commission, said at a Nov. 15 briefing with reporters in Washington, D.C."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 98, posted (2 years 9 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 9754 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 97):
The ESRC seems to be of the opinion that selling new jets to Taiwan is one way of accomplishing that.....



Seems like ESRC has good arguments for the purchase to be completed. Interesting article by the way. With Obama announcing troops in Australia and taking the leading role in the Asia-Pacific region it seems to fit in with those plans to allow Taiwan some new F-16 airplanes.



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 9591 times:

Quoting oykie (Reply 98):
With Obama announcing troops in Australia and taking the leading role in the Asia-Pacific region it seems to fit in with those plans to allow Taiwan some new F-16 airplanes.

The good senator from Texas is trying mightily to get the administration to come around to that view.....

http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/inde...eb5606-e2db-4d7f-bf6c-efc5df80b676



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineoykie From Norway, joined Jan 2006, 2732 posts, RR: 4
Reply 100, posted (2 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 9578 times:

Quoting Devilfish (Reply 99):
The good senator from Texas is trying mightily to get the administration to come around to that view.....

Were is the "Like" button when you need it?     



Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large, then go make that dream real - Donald Douglas
User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 101, posted (2 years 6 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 8103 times:

Update:

So far, only debate about the cost of the upgrades is making the news.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...6-upgrade-at-nt110-billion-367850/

Quote:
"Taiwan has placed the value of its Lockheed Martin F-16 A/B upgrade programme at NT$110 billion ($3.7 billion) and said talks with the US government about the upgrade are going smoothly.

In a statement on its website, Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense added that it has yet to firm up a detailed list of the upgrade's contents. The upgrade will ultimately affect about 152 Republic of China Air Force F-16 A/Bs.

The ministry issued the statement to rebut local media reports that Taiwan's military had cut NT$50 billion from other programmes to pay for the upgrade.

The NT$110 billion figure is lower than the $5.3 billion figure stated by the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) when it announced the upgrade had been approved in September 2011."



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7939 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Sept2, that will be the date Obama will announce a sale while on an election campaign trip to Dallas. Just as GHW Bush did 20 years ago a few months after GD said it would lay off over 5000 workers History repeats itself right?  

User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4795 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7487 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 102):
Sept2, that will be the date Obama will announce a sale while on an election campaign trip to Dallas.

Viper vision?.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...nnounces-f-16v-development-368323/

Quote:
"Lockheed Martin has announced a new variant of the F-16 fighter, which will include an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, new mission computer and other cockpit improvements.

The F-16V configuration will be available as an upgrade for most F-16s as well as new production jets, said George Standridge, vice-president of business development at Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. The 'V' in the aircraft's name stands for 'Viper', the nickname given to the type by US Air Force pilots.

During a presentation at the Singapore Airshow, Standridge noted that most legacy F-16s can be upgraded to the F-16V standard, which is roughly equivalent to the F-16 Block 60."



This could be the template for planned USAF F-16 updates too.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 104, posted (2 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 7475 times:

So which F16's can not be updated?.

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 105, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7371 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 104):
So which F16's can not be updated?.

anything can be done for enough $$$  

I would think from an avionics viewpoint any A/Bs pre block 20/MLU or C/Ds pre CCIP. You would have to replace the mission computer and displays totally and then do the AESA etc. Many early block 50s in foreign air forces are not CCIP level. Anyone know what level the Korean F16s are at now? I'm sure their early ones are not CCIP. Taiwanese ones won't be a problem as they are essentially Nato MLU level which was the baseline for the CCIP upgrade.


User currently offlinebennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7525 posts, RR: 3
Reply 106, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

What about the NATO F16A's?.

User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4741 posts, RR: 14
Reply 107, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 106):
What about the NATO F16A's?.

All those which went through the Mid Life Upgrade in the 90s (essentially any in service Dutch, Danish, Belgium, Norwegian (the EPAF four) and I think probably the Portugese A/Bs), if my theory is correct, would be at the highest avionics level already of any F16 (baring the block 60 which is unique to UAE).
The Nato MLU is the baseline for the USAFs Common Configuration Implementation Program which was carried out in the last few years to bring all US block 40/50s into the late 1990s in terms of their avionics tech and have a common standard. Taiwanese block 20s were new build MLUs. They are a few versions behind on the software tapes though compared to US and NATO planes (no GPS weapons primarily) and will probably need a MMC upgrade too to run the latest software and will be brought up to the same level as latest US and NATO EPAF with the new upgrade announced last year.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (2 years 6 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 7118 times:

Quoting trex8 (Reply 105):
Taiwanese ones won't be a problem as they are essentially Nato MLU level which was the baseline for the CCIP upgrade.

True; The Block 20 designation was reserved for the Taiwanese and the MLU program aircraft.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 105):
I would think from an avionics viewpoint any A/Bs pre block 20/MLU or C/Ds pre CCIP. You would have to replace the mission computer and displays totally and then do the AESA etc.

Those can go through the MLU program, which upgraded a mix of Block 10 and Block 15 aircraft. The MLU upgrade is a big undertaking, as it also involves the related PACER SLIP structural inspections and upgrades.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 105):
Anyone know what level the Korean F16s are at now? I'm sure their early ones are not CCIP.

The Koreans have a mix of Block 32's and Block 52's.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic U.S. To Deny Taiwan New F-16 Fighters
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
What To Name America's New Spaceship? posted Sun Jan 29 2006 08:14:39 by AerospaceFan
Canada To Get 16 New Transport Airrcraft posted Tue Nov 22 2005 21:07:36 by CO737800
Why Not Just To Build New Space Shuttles posted Sat Jan 1 2011 06:20:55 by flyglobal
President's Visit To CMH 8/16-17 posted Wed Aug 18 2010 17:51:38 by jimbobjoe
UK Confirms Plan To Deploy 'new' Chinooks To Afgha posted Fri Jan 15 2010 08:42:48 by Revelation
Russia Plans To Develop New Strategic Bomber posted Thu Dec 24 2009 14:57:42 by A342
F-16 Adv. As Alternative To F-35 posted Sun Oct 26 2008 10:27:28 by TexL1649
Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers posted Mon Jul 28 2008 07:04:11 by Mortyman
Belgium To Send 4 F 16's To Afghanistan.. posted Sat Jul 26 2008 07:08:28 by Beaucaire
If New RFP, What Will NG / Eads Change To KC45? posted Tue Jun 24 2008 02:26:04 by Keesje

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format